| Message ID | 1368479056-11780-3-git-send-email-nsujir@broadcom.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:04 -0700, Nithin Nayak Sujir wrote: > From: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com> > > The 5725 family of devices (asic rev 5762), corrupts TSO packets where > the buffer is within MSS bytes of a 4G boundary (4G, 8G etc.). Detect > this condition and trigger the workaround path. > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com> > Signed-off-by: Nithin Nayak Sujir <nsujir@broadcom.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c > index 781be76..e285d76 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c > @@ -7448,6 +7448,20 @@ static inline int tg3_4g_overflow_test(dma_addr_t mapping, int len) > return (base > 0xffffdcc0) && (base + len + 8 < base); > } > > +/* Test for TSO DMA buffers that cross into regions which are within MSS bytes > + * of any 4GB boundaries: 4G, 8G, etc > + */ > +static inline int tg3_4g_tso_overflow_test(struct tg3 *tp, dma_addr_t mapping, > + u32 len, u32 mss) > +{ > + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { > + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; > + > + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); > + } > + return 0; > +} > + I am curious : Does this condition even triggers ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/13/2013 02:14 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:04 -0700, Nithin Nayak Sujir wrote: >> From: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com> >> >> The 5725 family of devices (asic rev 5762), corrupts TSO packets where >> the buffer is within MSS bytes of a 4G boundary (4G, 8G etc.). Detect >> this condition and trigger the workaround path. >> >> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <mchan@broadcom.com> >> Signed-off-by: Nithin Nayak Sujir <nsujir@broadcom.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c >> index 781be76..e285d76 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c >> @@ -7448,6 +7448,20 @@ static inline int tg3_4g_overflow_test(dma_addr_t mapping, int len) >> return (base > 0xffffdcc0) && (base + len + 8 < base); >> } >> >> +/* Test for TSO DMA buffers that cross into regions which are within MSS bytes >> + * of any 4GB boundaries: 4G, 8G, etc >> + */ >> +static inline int tg3_4g_tso_overflow_test(struct tg3 *tp, dma_addr_t mapping, >> + u32 len, u32 mss) >> +{ >> + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { >> + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; >> + >> + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); >> + } >> + return 0; >> +} >> + > > I am curious : Does this condition even triggers ? > Yes, it's a rare problem to occur and was reported in our lab. After we implemented this fix, the problem didn't happen again. > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:34 -0700, Nithin Nayak Sujir wrote: > > On 05/13/2013 02:14 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> +/* Test for TSO DMA buffers that cross into regions which are within MSS bytes > >> + * of any 4GB boundaries: 4G, 8G, etc > >> + */ > >> +static inline int tg3_4g_tso_overflow_test(struct tg3 *tp, dma_addr_t mapping, > >> + u32 len, u32 mss) > >> +{ > >> + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { > >> + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; > >> + > >> + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); > >> + } > >> + return 0; > >> +} > >> + > > > > I am curious : Does this condition even triggers ? > > > > Yes, it's a rare problem to occur and was reported in our lab. After we > implemented this fix, the problem didn't happen again. > I just cant figure out which part of the kernel could allocate a fragment spanning a 4G region. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/13/2013 02:40 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:34 -0700, Nithin Nayak Sujir wrote: >> >> On 05/13/2013 02:14 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >>>> +/* Test for TSO DMA buffers that cross into regions which are within MSS bytes >>>> + * of any 4GB boundaries: 4G, 8G, etc >>>> + */ >>>> +static inline int tg3_4g_tso_overflow_test(struct tg3 *tp, dma_addr_t mapping, >>>> + u32 len, u32 mss) >>>> +{ >>>> + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { >>>> + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; >>>> + >>>> + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); >>>> + } >>>> + return 0; >>>> +} >>>> + >>> >>> I am curious : Does this condition even triggers ? >>> >> >> Yes, it's a rare problem to occur and was reported in our lab. After we >> implemented this fix, the problem didn't happen again. >> > > I just cant figure out which part of the kernel could allocate a > fragment spanning a 4G region. > For the bug to occur, the fragment does not have to span a 4G boundary. If it is within MSS bytes (9.6k) of a 4G boundary, it triggers the failure. > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 14:47 -0700, Nithin Nayak Sujir wrote: > For the bug to occur, the fragment does not have to span a 4G boundary. If it is > within MSS bytes (9.6k) of a 4G boundary, it triggers the failure. > Ah, that indeed can happen. Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 09:40 +0100, David Laight wrote: > > >>>> + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { > > >>>> + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; > > >>>> + > > >>>> + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); > ... > > For the bug to occur, the fragment does not have to span a 4G boundary. If it is > > within MSS bytes (9.6k) of a 4G boundary, it triggers the failure. > > Would it be worth simplifying the test to assume that 'len' > is 64k and 'mss' 9.6k? > (commenting on the actual condition.) > The number of false positives would be small, but the test > a lot quicker. > The '(u32)mapping + (0x10000 + 9600) < (u32)mapping' test might > even be faster than the ' tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762' one. I think that if we do this and detect a false positive, it may be very far from the 4G boundary. The new skb that we allocate to workaround the condition may be even closer to 4G and may hit the real bug condition. The mss and len values are accessed many times in this immediate code path just before setting the TX BD, gcc should be able to optimize this quite nicely. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 09:40 +0100, David Laight wrote: > > > >>>> + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { > > > >>>> + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; > > > >>>> + > > > >>>> + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); > > ... > > > For the bug to occur, the fragment does not have to span a 4G boundary. If it is > > > within MSS bytes (9.6k) of a 4G boundary, it triggers the failure. > > > > Would it be worth simplifying the test to assume that 'len' > > is 64k and 'mss' 9.6k? > > (commenting on the actual condition.) > > The number of false positives would be small, but the test > > a lot quicker. > > The '(u32)mapping + (0x10000 + 9600) < (u32)mapping' test might > > even be faster than the ' tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762' one. > > I think that if we do this and detect a false positive, it may be very > far from the 4G boundary. It can't be very far away, approx 1 in 65k checks would fail. You could do the finer test afterwards. > The new skb that we allocate to workaround the condition may be > even closer to 4G and may hit the real bug condition. If the 'fix' is to relocate the skb you are doomed to lose regardless of the check - unless you are willing to reallocate a lot of times, and without freeing the old skb. I'd assumed the 'fix' was to disable the relevant offload. > The mss and len values are accessed many times in this immediate code > path just before setting the TX BD, gcc should be able to optimize this > quite nicely. I was looking at the number of branches in the hot path, not whether the values were already in registers. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 16:20 +0100, David Laight wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 09:40 +0100, David Laight wrote: > > > > >>>> + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { > > > > >>>> + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; > > > > >>>> + > > > > >>>> + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); > > > ... > > > > For the bug to occur, the fragment does not have to span a 4G boundary. If it is > > > > within MSS bytes (9.6k) of a 4G boundary, it triggers the failure. > > > > > > Would it be worth simplifying the test to assume that 'len' > > > is 64k and 'mss' 9.6k? > > > (commenting on the actual condition.) > > > The number of false positives would be small, but the test > > > a lot quicker. > > > The '(u32)mapping + (0x10000 + 9600) < (u32)mapping' test might > > > even be faster than the ' tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762' one. > > > > I think that if we do this and detect a false positive, it may be very > > far from the 4G boundary. > > It can't be very far away, approx 1 in 65k checks would fail. > You could do the finer test afterwards. If we do a 2nd level test, it will be ok. But I'm not sure if it is worth the complexity. > > > The new skb that we allocate to workaround the condition may be > > even closer to 4G and may hit the real bug condition. > > If the 'fix' is to relocate the skb you are doomed to lose regardless > of the check - unless you are willing to reallocate a lot of times, > and without freeing the old skb. > I'd assumed the 'fix' was to disable the relevant offload. We relocate once and then drop the packet if we encounter additional errors, including OOM, DMA mapping error, 4G boundary, etc. The new linear skb should not hit the 4G boundary again. The room between the end of this current buffer and 4G isn't big enough for the new linear skb. > > > The mss and len values are accessed many times in this immediate code > > path just before setting the TX BD, gcc should be able to optimize this > > quite nicely. > > I was looking at the number of branches in the hot path, not whether > the values were already in registers. > Isn't the number of branches the same whether we use actual values in registers or fixed values? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 09:19 -0700, Michael Chan wrote: > We relocate once and then drop the packet if we encounter additional > errors, including OOM, DMA mapping error, 4G boundary, etc. The new > linear skb should not hit the 4G boundary again. The room between the > end of this current buffer and 4G isn't big enough for the new linear > skb. This remind me an issue on bnx2x : bnx2x FW has a limitation on GSO packets : A single mss can not span more than 10 fragments. After "net: use a per task frag allocator" patch, its possible for an application interleaving small write() on several sockets to build pathological skbs using 16 fragments (aka MAX_SKB_FRAGS) but small amount of payload. Fast path should build skbs with 2 or 3 fragments, as fragments can be order-3 pages. bnx2x driver performs an expensive skb_linearize() call and this can fail if memory is fragmented : skb->len can be around 64K, and including the skb_shared_info overhead, we might need order-5 pages. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > If the 'fix' is to relocate the skb you are doomed to lose regardless > > of the check - unless you are willing to reallocate a lot of times, > > and without freeing the old skb. > > I'd assumed the 'fix' was to disable the relevant offload. > > We relocate once and then drop the packet if we encounter additional > errors, including OOM, DMA mapping error, 4G boundary, etc. The new > linear skb should not hit the 4G boundary again. The room between the > end of this current buffer and 4G isn't big enough for the new linear > skb. The first skb might be just below the 4G boundary and the second just below the 8G one. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 09:56 +0100, David Laight wrote: > > > If the 'fix' is to relocate the skb you are doomed to lose regardless > > > of the check - unless you are willing to reallocate a lot of times, > > > and without freeing the old skb. > > > I'd assumed the 'fix' was to disable the relevant offload. > > > > We relocate once and then drop the packet if we encounter additional > > errors, including OOM, DMA mapping error, 4G boundary, etc. The new > > linear skb should not hit the 4G boundary again. The room between the > > end of this current buffer and 4G isn't big enough for the new linear > > skb. > > The first skb might be just below the 4G boundary and the > second just below the 8G one. > We will discard the packet if that happens. I think the probabilty is very small. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 08:12 -0700, Michael Chan wrote: > > We will discard the packet if that happens. I think the probabilty is > very small. Data corruption means the content of the packet was mangled on the wire, or was it a more serious issue, like a tx queue hang ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 08:23 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 08:12 -0700, Michael Chan wrote: > > > > > We will discard the packet if that happens. I think the probabilty is > > very small. > > Data corruption means the content of the packet was mangled on the wire, > or was it a more serious issue, like a tx queue hang ? > > I think the DMA engine is getting the wrong data under this condition so we end up with bad data but correct header checksums on the wire. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c index 781be76..e285d76 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/tg3.c @@ -7448,6 +7448,20 @@ static inline int tg3_4g_overflow_test(dma_addr_t mapping, int len) return (base > 0xffffdcc0) && (base + len + 8 < base); } +/* Test for TSO DMA buffers that cross into regions which are within MSS bytes + * of any 4GB boundaries: 4G, 8G, etc + */ +static inline int tg3_4g_tso_overflow_test(struct tg3 *tp, dma_addr_t mapping, + u32 len, u32 mss) +{ + if (tg3_asic_rev(tp) == ASIC_REV_5762 && mss) { + u32 base = (u32) mapping & 0xffffffff; + + return ((base + len + (mss & 0x3fff)) < base); + } + return 0; +} + /* Test for DMA addresses > 40-bit */ static inline int tg3_40bit_overflow_test(struct tg3 *tp, dma_addr_t mapping, int len) @@ -7484,6 +7498,9 @@ static bool tg3_tx_frag_set(struct tg3_napi *tnapi, u32 *entry, u32 *budget, if (tg3_4g_overflow_test(map, len)) hwbug = true; + if (tg3_4g_tso_overflow_test(tp, map, len, mss)) + hwbug = true; + if (tg3_40bit_overflow_test(tp, map, len)) hwbug = true;